Intelligent science vs. intelligent design

Intelligence and ID are not related.

Evolution is what most people would call fact. Anyone who knows anything about ID know ID is junk. Like both of the posts in this thread by immaterial.
 
Araneus said:
It makes perfect sense. If something cannot be proven scientifically, it has no place in science. End of discussion.

A complete nonsense of an argument; it is the Scientific Method and the analysis of evidence that forms the "basis of science", not just the application of intelligence. Pianists use their intelligence to create music, but this does not imply that playing the piano is part of science.
Click to expand...

The scientific method is a product, an extention if you like, of intelligence.

As for the piano, the mental processes involved in playing piano can easily be described and explained scientifically. If you know how to correctly define intelligence, that is.
 
immaterial said:
The scientific method is a product, an extention if you like, of intelligence.

As for the piano, the mental processes involved in playing piano can easily be described and explained scientifically. If you know how to correctly define intelligence, that is.
Click to expand...

So to continue this analogy, the mental processess of coming up with the theory of ID can be explained scientifically. It still doesn't make ID itself science.

Otherwise you end up defining everything that anyone does ever as science.
 
immaterial said:
The scientific method is a product, an extention if you like, of intelligence.
Click to expand...

One that ID doesn't meet the basic requirements of.

Being the product of human thought does not make something science. Your misconception is merely the classic 'all fathers' fallacy:

I. All fathers are men.
II. Therefore all men are fathers.

or...

I. All crows are black.
II. That bird is black.
III. Therefore that bird is a crow.
 
Jocky said:
The word "Intelligent" in ID refers to a hypothetical supernatural intelligence.
OTOH, the intelligence which drives science is very real and very human.
Hence, your argument is a false analogy.
{/QUOTE]

Well then prove that human intelligence is real, and that human design therfore is intelligent design....

--
Click to expand...
 
immaterial said:
I just told you: intelligence.
Click to expand...

But there is nothing intelligent about ID. In fact, quite the opposite: ID requires you to look at the evidence and ignore anything that doesn't fit. It's merely putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you".

The only thing about ID that's intelligent is the use of the word "intelligent" in the name. It doesn't mean anything, it's just a name they made up themselves. I could call myself an "intelligent slacker" and say what I do is science because it involves intelligence (hey, the name says it is), even though I don't really do anything at all, since I'm slacking ...
 
immaterial said:
Jocky said:
The word "Intelligent" in ID refers to a hypothetical supernatural intelligence.
OTOH, the intelligence which drives science is very real and very human.
Hence, your argument is a false analogy.
Click to expand...
Well then prove that human intelligence is real, and that human design therfore is intelligent design....
Click to expand...

I see no need to prove that human design is intelligent design, since I'm quite sure often it isn't.

This is what many consumer lawsuits are all about by the way. A consumer expressing their discontentement with the design and functioning of a product they bought. It's why dangerous products are recalled: design flaws, because the designs weren't as "intelligent" or "ingenious" as expected ...
 
exarch said:
Originally Posted by immaterial
Originally Posted by Jocky
The word "Intelligent" in ID refers to a hypothetical supernatural intelligence.
OTOH, the intelligence which drives science is very real and very human.
Hence, your argument is a false analogy.
Click to expand...
Well then prove that human intelligence is real, and that human design therfore is intelligent design....
Click to expand...
I see no need to prove that human design is intelligent design, since I'm quite sure often it isn't.

This is what many consumer lawsuits are all about by the way. A consumer expressing their discontentement with the design and functioning of a product they bought. It's why dangerous products are recalled: design flaws, because the designs weren't as "intelligent" or "ingenious" as expected ...
Click to expand...

Indeed, exarch - nothing intelligent about many aspects of human design.

Immaterial: You might try coming up with some arguments of your own to counter the many good points made against your position in this thread. Simply picking a phrase out of context and throwing it back at the originator does not represent a coherent argument - although it does provide us with some evidence of your own intelligence :rolleyes:

Apparently, you want me to prove that human intellligence exists. Are you able to define what you mean by "intelligence", so that I can attempt this feat? As you point out, science has not settled on a fixed definition of this term, but since you support ID and it relies on the concept of intelligence, presumably you must be able to provide one.

Your assertion that intellligent design in humans is demonstrated by the existence of human intelligence seems to be a total non sequitor. Would you care to to explain why intelligent design is necessarily required in order for intelligence to evolve?
 
immaterial said:
Jocky said:
The word "Intelligent" in ID refers to a hypothetical supernatural intelligence.
OTOH, the intelligence which drives science is very real and very human.
Hence, your argument is a false analogy.
{/QUOTE]

Well then prove that human intelligence is real, and that human design therfore is intelligent design....

--
Click to expand...

ANd that has nothing to do with the belief structures behind ID.
Click to expand...
 
immaterial said:
I find the commonly used argument "ID is not a science since it cannot be investigated, explained, or proven scientifically", very peculiar. it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Here you are makeing a classic mistake of ID supporters, one main problem that prevents ID from being a scientific theory is that it can not be disproven not that it can not be proven. There is no way to show that it can not happen as you can not prove a negative(there is no god who can make life).

So it fails to meet the criteria for a scientific theory.
 
fls said:
I've seen this statement several times now. What does it refer to, cuz we prove negatives all the time?

Linda
Click to expand...

That you can not prove that X can not happen, you can only show that it didn't happen. For example we can not prove that telepathy does not exist we can only make statements about individual claims and that they do not meet the criteria of for telepathy.

For example, I claim a rock is the most intelligent being on the planet, how do you prove that this is not the case? You can't, you demand I show evidence for my claim and back it up that the rock(whom I call Sir Tellingsby) is intelligent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom